Iqbal Mohamed MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  An estimated 229,000 excess deaths by 2036—that is the eye-watering figure that BMJ analysis identifies as the upshot of diverting NHS funding to pay more for pharmaceuticals in response to Trump’s threats. Estimates day debates exist to scrutinise how public money will be spent before that spending has happened, not least when the decisions could have such damaging consequences for the health of our nation. This estimates day debate does not include the full budgetary consequences of the UK-US pharmaceutical deal agreed on 1 December. When we look at the cost, the Government’s figures simply do not stack up. Instead, we see a structural weakening of NHS safeguards on drug pricing, higher thresholds, weaker rebate mechanisms and a commitment to dramatically increase spending, which will prove devastating for patient health. Ministers claim that the arrangement will cost about £1 billion over the current spending review period, but independent analysis tells a different story. Using the projections of the Office for Budget Responsibility, the House of Commons Library suggests that increasing spending on medicines in line with the Government’s commitments would require about £1.7 billion extra by 2028, and potentially as much as £14 billion a year by 2036. The Government have been clear on one point, and one point only: they say that those increased costs will come from existing NHS budgets. No new funding has been guaranteed. Every extra billion spent on higher-priced medicines is a billion not spent elsewhere in a system that is already under immense strain. This is money not spent on tackling waiting lists, not spent on primary care, and not spent on saving lives. As we have heard, the Nuffield Trust has made that point starkly, estimating that the NHS will be able to save 340,000 fewer years of quality-adjusted life in 2035 if the promised spending goes ahead. Despite the magnitude of these changes, the Government have refused to publish the full impact assessment of the deal that they hold. Why? This worrying development can be seen in the way in which the UK-US pharma deal was forced through, with no vote and scant parliamentary oversight. Let me summarise what I wrote on PoliticsHome back in March. This deal will increase the cost-effectiveness threshold set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, curtail the overall cost cap on patented medicines, double the amount spent on such medicines, and increase the share of the NHS budget allocated to medicines. That should worry every Member of this House, because once those safeguards have been eroded, they are very difficult to restore.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman to comment on the fact that the NHS pays 10 times the manufacturing costs for over 80% of the licensed medicines that we buy? How is that underpaying?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, in normal clinical trials, the active substance and a placebo would be used, and the impact, changes or benefits that each cohort experienced would be checked. If children have a psychological leaning and are emotionally feeling that they are in the wrong body, is there not value in having a cohort that takes a placebo and seeing if that improves their mental health?

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  Health inequality in the NHS for people of ethnic minorities is a challenge that we need to address. The New Orleans police department and the Los Angeles police department both terminated Palantir-powered predictive policing due to the system’s reinforcing racial bias and creating feedback loops to overpoliced communities that were affected. Does the hon. Member agree not only that the company and its leaders are unethical but that the systems it supplies are unethical and racist?

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. In a briefing for investors, Palantir chief executive officer Alex Karp said: “we are super proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about…Palantir is here to disrupt…and when it’s necessary, to scare our enemies and on occasion kill them.” If it looks evil, if it smells evil and if it behaves evil, then it is evil. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate. Given my lack of speaking time, I am going to have to cut my speech short. We must examine Palantir’s record elsewhere in the world in our assessment of its suitability as a supplier to the NHS. Palantir has long-standing contracts with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the tools to track and target migrants that it has provided to ICE have facilitated racial profiling, family separation and violations of due process. In January 2024, Palantir entered into a strategic partnership with the Israeli Ministry of Defence to support war-related missions, meaning that its advanced data systems are used to perpetuate a genocide against the Palestinian people. Reports from Novara Media and the Financial Times state that NHS staff have been warned that they could be fired for criticising the NHS contract with Palantir, that NHS organisations are under pressure to sign up voluntarily to the Palantir data system, and that technicians have been told to stop working on alternate systems. The Swiss Government have previously rejected engagement with Palantir, raising national security concerns; in the US, hospital systems in New York have moved away from Palantir arrangements, citing data governance and control issues; and here at home, uptake of the FDP remains uneven, with many NHS professionals reluctant—in some cases refusing—to engage with it. Perhaps most concerning of all are the reports that patient data opt-outs do not apply to the federated data platform due to a legal direction issued under section 254 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, yet that direction has not been published or named or been subject to scrutiny. This debate is not about technology; it is about who we trust to sit at the heart of our NHS, and on that question, the Government must think again.

• 16 Apr 2026 · NHS Federated Data Platform · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate on the first anniversary of the For Women Scotland Ltd v. the Scottish Ministers ruling. I also thank her and other colleagues in this Chamber for their work on these sensitive issues surrounding sex and gender. They have helped ensure that Parliament continues to grapple with these issues in a careful and thoughtful manner. This issue has faced our society since before I became a Member; and even before I entered this place, it was clear that it was being weaponised, one human being against another, by people who do not always have the best interests of those groups or human beings at heart. I am struggling to put into words my complete confusion that, in the 21st century in the UK Parliament, we are debating what a woman is. It is Adam and Eve, if you are people of faith or believe in the origin of human beings, and even if you are not people of faith, people have known what a woman and a man are since the beginning of time. I stand here with full respect for those who feel or want to be or, for whatever reason that I do not understand, believe that they are a different gender from the biological sex that they are in. However, women’s rights have been less, and diminished, for centuries, and every single year they are fighting on many fronts for equality. I have stood in this place and in the main Chamber talking about women’s rights on healthcare, maternity rights and gender pay equality—things that men have taken for granted but where they have imposed a substandard level of right on women. It is completely unacceptable. But here we are now, questioning the fundamental biology of women—not just in this place, in this country, but everywhere in the world. I cannot reconcile the situation that we have faced. When the Supreme Court finally gave a ruling that clearly defined what a man and a woman are under the law, we expected this gaslighting, this aggressive lobbying and this fighting between fellow human beings to, hopefully, recede with clear guidance, rules and processes at parliamentary level, at a legal level and at an employment rights level. But here we are a year later, and the Government have been dilly-dallying and sitting on the ruling, which does not change the law, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) said. The anniversary provides an opportunity not only to reflect on the nature of this specific ruling, but to reaffirm the fundamental principle that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, the judgments of our highest courts must be respected and properly implemented. The Supreme Court’s ruling of 16 April 2025 brought much-needed legal clarity. It confirmed that, within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, references to “sex”, “man” and “woman” are to be understood as referring to biological sex. How somebody felt that they referred to something else, I cannot understand. That was not the creation of a new law, but the authoritative interpretation of legislation passed by Parliament. I stand here with women constituents, men constituents, trans women constituents, trans male constituents and people who are still trying to find their way through their biology and feelings, and I stand for each and every one of those without fear or favour. I have met trans people in my constituency, both those who have transitioned fully, so they are either a man or a woman because biologically they have transitioned, and those who have not transitioned and have a gender recognition certificate or live their life as the opposite gender.

• 14 Apr 2026 · “For Women Scotland” Court Ruling: First Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I am not a medical doctor—there are experts in this room—but if somebody has gone through operations under the NHS and that is medically assessed and professionally delivered, I respect their current biological status. If I have used the wrong language, I apologise, but these are special cases. The case that the hon. Member mentioned earlier in an intervention, where somebody had had breast cancer and had a double mastectomy, and may be misidentified as male, is a special case; that person has gone through a physical change that may make others see something different from who they are. Those are separate arguments to biological males identifying as women. As I was saying, none of these transgender constituents of mine has come to me and said, “I want to be entering single-sex spaces of the other gender to make me feel that I am who I believe that I am.” I think that needs to be understood—that this view is not universal across the transgender community. Clarity in the law is profoundly important. Without it, public bodies, service providers and indeed individuals are left navigating uncertainty. Inconsistent interpretations risk undermining both compliance with and confidence in our legal system, to distressing effect. Rights that already exist in law for any gender, biological sex, man or woman, cannot be usurped by new demands from people in our community, whether it is trans, or Muslims, or Christians, or people of no faith. Rights, once they are acquired and in law, should be protected and implemented, and any new demands or changes required to support in full other members of the community who may differ must be grappled with and dealt with by the Government without undermining existing rights. The Court’s judgment provides a clear, coherent framework within which decisions can be made, particularly in relation to single-sex services, which the Equality Act explicitly permits. Yet this judgment did not remove rights from trans people. Protections preventing discrimination remain firmly in place, as they should. Trans rights are human rights where they are not impinging on somebody else’s human rights. That is a really clear distinction that we need to make. This is not a zero-sum question of one group’s rights being set against another’s, with gains for one group coming only at the expense, or at the loss, of the rights of another. Rather, it is about ensuring that the law is applied as intended, recognising distinct protected characteristics and giving effect to each in a way that is workable and, crucially, fair. Of course, implementation must be done sensitively and responsibly, taking pains to ensure that the human rights and dignity of all are respected. The law already allows for flexibility to accommodate this. It is therefore really difficult to understand why the public sector, especially the NHS, is spending hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of pounds on going to tribunals, knowing that it will lose, for an ideological, entrenched reason. That should not be happening. That money should be spent treating women, trans women, trans men and other patients within the NHS. I pay tribute to the Darlington nurses and Jennifer Melle for being here, and for being the light, or the source of information, around this topic, having gone through so much suffering and persecution to stand up for their basic human rights as biological females.

• 25 Mar 2026 · NHS Continuing Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  It is the responsibility of ICBs to administer and provide this support, but does the Minister share my concern and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) that the involvement of private contractors in eligibility reviews may not be appropriate? The ICB may feel that responsibility lies with the private contractor to guide it, rather than owning its decisions.

• 25 Mar 2026 · NHS Continuing Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I wholeheartedly agree with him, in particular about his constituents who had the support that their child needed for many years, had an annual review that reconfirmed that that support was necessary, and then suddenly, out of the blue, faced a challenge by some new body or process. Does he agree that there should be a clear, transparent process that is easy to understand by families who go through it, that there should be clear checks and balances to ensure that families receive a fair hearing, and that, when support is agreed and secured, it should be maintained until the next formal review is required and the criteria and conditions have changed?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely eloquent speech. Of course we understand that the more people come into our country, the more the pressures on our public services will be exacerbated. The numbers he cited are post Brexit, under his former Government. If I remember correctly—I apologise if I get this wrong—net migration before Brexit was around a quarter of million people, mostly skilled labour or for specific work. After Brexit, the Europeans had to return, and we ended up allowing thousands of people to work in our care sector, in our NHS and in service industries that had too many vacancies. How does he explain the policies of his Government, which led to net migration rising from a quarter of a million to 900,000-plus, and what would he do differently today?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Fur: Import and Sale · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree, and I was happy to support the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill and speak in the debate. Anything that we deem unacceptable or cruel in our country is unacceptable or cruel wherever it is done, and we should not help to perpetuate that cruelty elsewhere around the world. The ethical question is, as the hon. Gentleman just said, why are we comfortable outsourcing animal cruelty to other countries simply because it then occurs beyond our shores? Increasingly, the general public recognise the incoherence of that perverse position. There has been a profound sea change in British public attitudes to the fur trade. A YouGov survey found that 93% of people in the UK do not wear real fur and, as we heard, 97% would never wear real fur. A 2023 poll found that 77% believe that when a type of farming is banned in the UK for being too cruel, we should also ban imports of products produced in the same way overseas. An easy win for the Government would be to implement a policy that is widely popular: such cruelty is unacceptable to the people of our country. In other words, that is not a controversial position among the public, but reflects a widely shared, common-sense position that the fur trade is outdated and unnecessary in the 21st century. The economic case for maintaining the fur trade is increasingly weak. The UK fur market has been in steep decline over the past decade. Fur imports now represent just a tiny fraction of the UK’s overall clothing trade. Many major brands and global luxury houses have already turned away from fur entirely, and London Fashion Week banned its use in 2023. The direction of travel is clear: the industry is dying, consumer demand is collapsing and alternatives are widely available. Environmental and public health concerns are also associated with fur production. Studies have shown that the carbon footprint of fur significantly exceeds that of many other materials used in fashion, given the intensive farming of carnivorous wild animals and the process it entails. Meanwhile, outbreaks of SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome—and avian influenza on fur farms have highlighted the risks that such facilities can pose as potential transmission hubs for zoonotic disease, thereby increasing the likelihood of future pandemics. Taken together, the case for a more comprehensive ban is compelling. I welcome the efforts of colleagues who have brought forward proposals to prohibit the import and sale of fur in the United Kingdom, including the Fur (Import and Sale) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn. Such legislation would close the obvious loophole that currently exists in our animal welfare framework. The UK was once a global leader in banning fur farming. Many other countries followed our example. We now have an opportunity to lead again, by ending our association with a trade that is morally repugnant, environmentally harmful, economically marginal and overwhelmingly rejected by the public. There is no such thing as humane fur farming, wherever it takes place, and it must end now.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Digital ID: Public Consultation · Hansard source

  More

  Consistent polling has found that the public are not interested in digital ID and remain deeply concerned about the implications for their privacy. They have a sustained lack of trust in this Government to run the scheme. That is especially the case given the fact that this Government have sold out our NHS to Palantir and handed almost £700 million in taxpayer cash to Peter Thiel, as well as—potentially—the data of our patients. What is the Chief Secretary doing to uncouple our Government services from Palantir? Will he commit that no public money will go to Palantir to run this digital ID scheme?

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. Member agree that anybody who comes to our country and does not pay into the system through national insurance and taxes should not be allowed to benefit from services that taxpayers fund, like the NHS, education, GPs, dentists and so on? It is a two-tier system if we are treating our care workers and healthcare professionals who come here on official visas differently from imported labour.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree. We must have equal compassion for all in our society, whether they were born here or came here to build a life for themselves and support our country and the prosperity that we all share in. Uzoamaka concluded her letter by asserting that “we do not want favours. We want fairness. We do not seek sympathy. We demand justice.” If Labour politicians did not go into politics to give a voice to the otherwise powerless, such as Uzoamaka, and to fight for a humane state, why are they here? That is why Labour Members must vehemently oppose any changes that would extend indefinite leave to remain or unjustly penalise those on low incomes. I urge the Minister to examine the Home Secretary’s proposals, which would marginalise even further the lowest earners and the most marginalised in our society, who make a key contribution to our society. They will destroy the fabric of our country, our NHS, the care sector and many other industries that rely on people from outside Britain to keep our country running.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Last week I held a meeting with the Nigerian community in my constituency. Around 30 workers were present, many of whom work intolerably long hours performing vital tasks for scandalously low pay in the healthcare and social care sectors. These people are scared: they are scared that the state will arbitrarily deprive them of their security and their ability to plan for the future with any certainty. One of those individuals—her name is Uzoamaka—wrote to me outlining her concerns. Uzoamaka came to our country in 2022, and works in the NHS. She wrote: “I am an immigrant, a taxpayer, a worker, and a human being. But the new immigration white paper strips me and others like me of dignity, stability, and belonging”, She goes on to say that proposals to extend indefinite leave to remain “to make someone live in limbo for ten years, despite working hard and paying taxes, is cruelty in slow motion. Ten years of exclusion, from a future. This is not about integration. It is about humiliation.” How can a Labour Administration who profess to care about social justice participate in such performative barbarity against immigrants—a group already vilified in the media and subject to acute marginalisation in wider society? As Uzoamaka writes: “this entire system treats immigrants as disposable tools. We are good enough to pay into the NHS, but not to benefit from it. We are needed but never welcomed.” Similarly, a proposal that workers could still qualify after five years if they earn over £50,000 is “a gatekeeping tool. Most healthcare assistants, carers, cleaners, and laboratory technicians will never meet this bar. Yet we clap for them, we depend on them, we call them key workers. Now we discard them.”

• 28 Jan 2026 · Local Authority Children’s Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for securing this important debate and for his passionate and heartfelt speech. I want to begin by acknowledging that Kirklees council has improved significantly since previous inspections. The most recent inspection in 2024 judged it as good overall for children’s services, and it has been allocated extra funding in 2026-27 to try and address some of the findings. However, the message to the Government is that the councils that have done all they can to get from requires improvement to good need extra support in funding and resources to then go and push further to get to outstanding. Today, I want to focus on one area that may not otherwise be raised. We have heard that the pressures on local authorities are intense and growing. In Dewsbury and Batley, around 300 children are being raised in kinship care—cared for by grandparents, aunts, uncles or close friends who step in during moments of crisis. Alongside that, over 100 children are currently in local authority care in Kirklees. Importantly, Kirklees has lower numbers of looked after children than many of our neighbouring councils, reflecting long-standing preventive approaches and sustained investment in early help and family support. We also have a higher proportion of children able to remain with their extended families, with greater use of special guardianship orders, which we know significantly improve outcomes for children. Kinship carers in particular provide a vital service in offering continuity, familiarity and love at a time of upheaval. Yet too often, they do so with insufficient support. Across Yorkshire and Humber, almost half of kinship carers rate the support they receive from local authorities as poor or very poor. Alarmingly, 12% say they may not be able to continue caring for their kinship children in the next year if circumstances do not improve. That will put almost 2,000 children at risk of entering formal care in Yorkshire and Humber. That is not just a human tragedy, but also a financial one. Evidence shows that, for every 100 children supported in well-resourced kinship care rather than local authority care, the state saves £4 million a year, while improving long-term outcomes for those children. Nationally, children’s social care reforms are widely welcomed and have been shaped by the expertise of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. The renewed focus on multi-agency family support, early intervention and prevention is particularly welcome. The proposed investment, through the Families First Partnership programme and wider reforms, has the potential to make a real difference, strengthening our ability to help families stay together where safe, deploy evidence-based interventions and deliver high-quality social care. But reform must be matched with sustained funding and genuine cross-Government co-ordination alongside real, sustained support on the ground. That means investing in early intervention, strengthening kinship care support, improving placement sufficiency and ensuring joined-up working across services. My final point to the Minister is that, in the first year of being an MP, I raised the automatic off-rolling of children after 20 days of absence without authorisation. That really needs to be looked at—there needs to be a formal meeting and a review of why that child was out before just off-rolling them, because that can create safeguarding issues.

• 20 Jan 2026 · ADHD Diagnosis · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. We hear the phrase “postcode lottery” a lot, and we should not have a postcode lottery in our country for access to essential healthcare and educational services. Everybody should have equal access to the support that is available to other people, without having to go private. The consequences of these delayed assessments are stark. Families are pushed towards private assessments they cannot afford, entrenching a two-tier system that makes a mockery of the NHS’s spirit of free care at the point of use by rendering access contingent upon income. The Justice Gap also reports that around 25% of prisoners have ADHD, with many entering the system having not been diagnosed. They are more prone to reoffending. I will conclude to give time for other colleagues to speak. I urge the Government to look at this issue holistically, as mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and provide support for children, adults and offenders. I believe that investment would render a greater return.

• 20 Jan 2026 · ADHD Diagnosis · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing this important debate. Delays and problems relating to ADHD diagnosis are not just a marginal administrative issue, but a profound failure of our system to meet medical needs early, effectively and equitably. For too many children and adults, long waits for diagnosis can negatively shape their entire life trajectory, harming their educational attainment, mental health, employment prospects and personal relationships. NHS estimates suggest that 2.5 million people in England have ADHD, including nearly half a million children and young people, yet demand continues to vastly outstrip capacity. In September 2025, over 60% of both adults and children had been waiting more than a year for an ADHD assessment. In my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, Rachel reached out to me rightly outraged at an 18-month wait for ADHD assessment, with Kirklees council working through a backlog from November 2022. Another constituent, Laura, has spoken about her difficulty accessing medication even after diagnosis. The pressure on councils has been increasing on all fronts, with funding decreasing at the same time over the 14 years of the previous Government. I am not blaming the councils, but they do need support.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Free Bus Travel: Over-60s · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on introducing this important debate, which I welcome. I want to make clear that I strongly support e-petition 702845. The fact that more than 100,000 people signed it shows how strongly the public feel about the issue and how far it reaches into people’s everyday lives. The petition is simple and reasonable. It calls on the Government to extend free bus travel to people over 60 in England outside London, bringing England into line with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. At present, those living outside London must wait until state pension age—currently 66—to qualify, despite the fact that mobility, confidence in driving and independence often decline well before that point. The Government’s response recognises the value of bus services and points to welcome investment, including the funding announced in the recent Budget. I welcome that funding, but the response ultimately sidesteps the core issue. Responsibility is shifted to local authorities and devolved Governments, rather than making free bus travel a statutory entitlement across England. That matters because leaving it as a discretionary measure creates inequality and uncertainty. Local authorities are under immense financial pressure, and people’s access to free travel should not depend on where they live or how stretched their council’s budget happens to be. National problems require national solutions. We also need to be honest about the scale of the gap that people face. It is not a short transition period. The difference between age 60 and state pension age is six years, and that gap is set to increase further as the pension age rises. It is six more years during which people might be driving less, losing confidence behind the wheel, or giving up their car altogether, but are still expected to pay rising transport costs. For many older people, particularly in towns and areas with patchy public transport, the alternative is often taxis. That becomes harder in later life in retirement when people are more likely to live on a fixed income, watching every pound and trying to stretch their pension as far as possible. What was once an occasional expense can quickly become unaffordable. This debate is not just about transport policy, but about mental health, dignity and independence. I have spoken many times in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber about adult mental health and the importance of prevention. One of the clearest contributors to declining mental health in later life is loss of freedom of movement. Research by the London School of Economics shows that a policy of free transport for the over-60s would deliver powerful and measurable benefits. Older bus pass holders are 37% less likely to be sedentary, improving their physical health through everyday activity like walking to and from shops. They are also one third less likely to experience social isolation, a factor strongly linked to poor mental and physical wellbeing. The NHS increasingly recognises the importance of community mental health for all older people and the importance of staying socially connected, active and engaged. When people cannot get out to see friends, attend community groups, volunteer or even make simple, everyday journeys, isolation sets in. Loneliness, anxiety and depression are not abstract risks, but real outcomes of restricted mobility, and free bus travel for over-60s is therefore not just a concession, but an investment in wellbeing, independence and prevention.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Free Bus Travel: Over-60s · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that I do not have cost figures to hand, but the research that I referred to in preparation for this speech demonstrated the quantifiable economic benefits of the policy. I believe that any cost incurred from implementing it would be paid for many times over through reduced visits to GPs and hospitals, as well as increased economic spend by people who can get out more. Free bus travel also supports healthier ageing, reduces isolation and helps people to remain part of their communities for longer, easing pressure on health and social care services in the long term. I urge the Government to listen to the strength of feeling behind the petition, to move beyond passing responsibility elsewhere and to consider making free bus travel for over-60s a fair national and statutory entitlement. If we are serious about equality, prevention and supporting people through later life, that is a change that we should be willing to make. Providing free bus travel for over 60s is a proven, practical and popular policy. The evidence is clear, the public support is strong and the need is urgent—the Government must act.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a happy new year to all. I have a constituent who was in care as a child and who was arrested at age 11, more than four decades ago, for stealing. Even though it is a minor petty crime, this juvenile crime has not been removed from their Disclosure and Barring Service certificate, and my constituent believes that this has impacted their ability to be employed in the social care sector as it appears on their DBS certificate and is not eligible for removal. Will the Home Secretary consider changes to the DBS filtering framework for petty minor offences committed by children to determine whether such offences should continue to appear on DBS certificates and later impact employment?

• 10 Dec 2025 · AI Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered AI safety. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler, and it is an honour and a privilege to open this really important debate. Artificial intelligence is the new frontier of humanity. It has become the most talked about and invested in technology on our planet. It is developing at a pace we have never seen before; it is already changing how we solve problems in science, medicine and industry; and it has delivered breakthroughs that were simply out of reach a few years ago. The potential benefits are real, and we are already seeing them; however, so are the risks and the threats, which is why we are here for this debate. I thank my colleague Aaron Lukas, as well as Axiom, the author of the book “Driven to Extinction: The Terminal Logic of Superintelligence”, and Joseph Miller and Jonathan Bostock from PauseAI for their help in preparing for this debate. I encourage all MPs to read the briefing they have been sent by PauseAI. AI is a very broad subject, but this debate is focused on AI safety—the possibility that AI systems could directly harm or kill people, whether through autonomous weapons, cyber-attacks, biological threats or escaping human control—and what the Government can do to protect us all. I will share examples of the benefits and opportunities, and move on to the real harms, threats and risks—or, as I call them, the good, the bad and the potential end of the world. On the good, AI systems in the NHS can analyse scans and test results in seconds, helping clinicians to spot serious conditions earlier and with greater accuracy. They are already being used to ease administrative loads, to improve how hospitals plan resources, to help to shorten waiting lists and to give doctors and nurses the time to focus on care rather than paperwork. The better use of AI can improve how Government services function. It can speed up the processing of visas, benefits, tax reviews and casework. It offers more accurate tools for detecting fraud and protecting public money. By modelling transport, housing and energy demand at a national scale, it can help Departments to make decisions based on evidence that they simply could not gather on their own. AI can also make everyday work across the public sector more efficient by taking on routine work and allowing civil servants to focus on the judgment, problem solving and human decisions that no system can replace. AI has already delivered breakthroughs in science and technology that were far beyond our reach only a few years ago. Problems once thought unsolvable are now being cracked in weeks or even days. One of the clearest examples is the work on protein folding, for which the 2024 Nobel prize for chemistry was awarded—not to chemists, but to AI experts John Jumper and Demis Hassabis at Google DeepMind. For decades scientists struggled to map the shapes of key proteins in the human body; the AI system AlphaFold has now solved thousands of them. A protein structure is often the key to developing new treatments for cancers, genetic disorders and antibiotic-resistant infections. What once took years of painstaking laboratory work can now be done in hours. We are beginning to see entirely new medicines designed by AI, with several AI-designed drug candidates already reaching clinical trials for conditions such as fibrosis and certain cancers. I could go on to list many other benefits, but in the interests of time I will move on to the bad. Alongside the many benefits, we have already seen how AI technology can cause real harm when it is deployed without care or regulation. In some cases, the damage has come from simple oversight; in others, from deliberate misuse. Either way, the consequences are no longer theoretical; they are affecting people’s lives today. In November 2025, Anthropic revealed the first documented large-scale cyber-attack driven almost entirely by AI, with minimal human involvement. A Chinese state-sponsored group exploited Anthropic’s Claude AI to conduct cyber-espionage on about 30 global targets, including major tech firms, financial institutions and Government agencies, with the AI handling 80% to 90% of the intrusion autonomously. Anthropic has warned that barriers to launching sophisticated attacks have fallen dramatically, meaning that even less experienced groups can carry out attacks of this kind. Mental health professionals are now treating AI psychosis, a phenomenon where individuals develop or experience worsening psychotic symptoms in connection with AI chatbot use. Documented cases include delusion, the conviction that AI has answers to the universe and paranoid schizophrenia. OpenAI disclosed that approximately 0.07% of ChatGPT users exhibit signs of mental health emergencies each week. With 800 million weekly users, that amounts to roughly 560,000 people per week being affected.